MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2013323458 · doi:10.1111/apt.12933

Editorial: healing of refractory reflux oesophagitis – an ongoing unmet clinical need

2014· editorial· en· W2013323458 sur OpenAlexaff
Richard H. Hunt, Yuhong Yuan, Carmelo Scarpignato

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2014
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesPfizer PharmaceuticalsAstraZeneca
Mots-clésMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Regurgitation (circulation)Internal medicineConcomitantGastroenterologyRefluxLogistic regressionDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Refractory GERD remains a challenging problem. The article by Kahrilas1 is timely and welcome but unfortunate that the analysis has provided no new clinical directions. In results, Kahrilas found ‘significantly more refractory patients had frequent regurgitation at baseline than slow healers (80% vs. 63% P = 0.039)’ and in discussion ‘patients with refractory oesophagitis had a significantly higher prevalence of frequent regurgitation at baseline than slow healers, and a trend towards a higher prevalence of frequent regurgitation vs. rapid healers'. We believe that including only patients who had regurgitation at baseline (37/46 vs. 47/75) was incorrect. Calculating the ‘prevalence’ taking all patients who had refractory oesophagitis vs. slow healing oesophagitis (37/49 vs. 47/78), the difference between the two groups is no longer significant (P = 0.086). Although 93% of patients had concomitant regurgitation at baseline, when the sample size is small, a small change in numbers can alter the results significantly. Therefore, comparisons between refractory oesophagitis and slow healing oesophagitis should be interpreted with caution. It is unclear which patient characteristics were ‘independent predictors’ in the regression model. The patient characteristics assessed did not cover all the baseline variables in the tables. It is not clear whether Kahrilas took any patients with regurgitation (86%), or those with only frequent regurgitation (59%). Conversely, it is not clear if ‘logistic regression analysis’ was also used to study ‘possible predictors’ for group B, although the authors claimed at ‘Week 4 possible predictors of refractory vs. slow healing RE were also assessed, but none was statistically significant’. If so, only four or fewer predictors should be put into the model, considering the small sample size of refractory patients (n = 49) since logistic regression models require a minimum of 10 events per variable. Hiatal hernia (HH) was significantly increased only in patients not healed at 2 weeks vs. rapid healers, but unexpectedly, HH was not increased in slow healers (69%) vs. rapid healers (64%) vs. refractory patients (51%); and was significantly lower in refractory patients vs. slow healers. The statement in discussion that ‘a higher proportion of patients with refractory reflux oesophagitis had HH at baseline than did rapid or slow healers’ is therefore incorrect. The authors suggested that this ‘may simply be due to the small sample sizes involved’; this is doubtful, because more than half the patients had HH and the sample size is not small, especially for rapid healers. The statement that ‘95% CIs for all mean QoLRAD scores overlapped, which may reflect the limited sample size after 8 weeks of therapy’ for refractory patients (n = 49) vs. slow healers (n = 78) and vs. rapid healers (n = 495) is incorrect. Overlapping 95% CIs do not indicate differences are nonsignificant, and are not necessarily related to sample size and here are not small for mean scores comparisons. Kahrilas1 confirmed the studies of the McMaster group (15–20 years ago), showing the complex relationship of acid suppression to oesophagitis healing2 and to speed of healing3; oesophagitis classification also impacts the evaluation of oesophagitis healing with PPIs4 and time pH <4 predicts the failure of oesophagitis to heal.5 Savarino6 found HH a negative predictor for normalising oesophageal acid exposure in refractory patients, which required an increased PPI dose, emphasising the importance of dose and duration of PPI anti-secretory effect. Dose and frequency of administration was a critical factor in the Cochrane review.7 We5 and others have emphasised unmet needs in the treatment of severe oesophagitis, which is, in part, due to the lack of an agreed definition of PPI refractory disease. With once-daily esomeprazole, 12.9% and 20.5% of LA grade C and D oesophagitis, respectively, are still unhealed after 8 weeks 8 (Table 1) and healing rate is time dependent.3, 7 Thus, 12 weeks might be considered a better ‘time point’ to determine oesophagitis ‘refractory’ to PPIs. We believe in a tailored approach.9 When the prescriber has the choice of equally potent but longer acting acid suppressants,10 rather than the current ‘one size fits all’ PPIs, refractory oesophagitis may become a disease of the past. Declaration of personal interests: Carmelo Scarpignato has served as a speaker, consultant and/or advisory board member for Alfa Wassermann, AstraZeneca, Boeheringer-Ingelheim, Giuliani Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Recordati, Sigma-Tau, Shire and Warner-Chilcott, and has in the past received funding from Giuliani Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. Declaration of funding interests: None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,049

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,004
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,004
Communication savante0,0070,007
Science ouverte0,0060,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0190,024
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,016

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,415
Écart entre enseignants0,377 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsMême sujetGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207